Jump to content
sandgrubber

Maybe we're breeding from the wrong land races

13 posts in this topic

The recent News post on the Baladi has left me thinking that most of our breeds stem from 

1. Rural working breeds

2. Aristocrat / wealthy peoples' dogs, meant as lap dogs or hunting dogs

3. Fighting dogs, either as in pit fighting or as war dogs.

Not many breeds come from land races associated with the urban poor or common folk.  Seems a shame.  Such dogs would almost have to be well attuned to people, dog friendly, low maintenance, and healthy to have survived... exactly the traits I want in a house dog.

Edited by sandgrubber
Better title

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Makes sense to me until people want to draw up a standard, close the stud book and make them into cookie cut outs with a limited gene pool. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not leave them as flexible land races? A standard is not a mandatory part of breeding a dog - I would hazard that a standard is more a symptom of higher class stamping their mark over a type of dogs. Land race breeds are generally varied across a base type. Breed standards are not known for that level of flexibility. Etc etc 

 

i realise the irony in writing that on a pure bred dog forum :p

 

regarding class divisions on the types of dogs owner, there’s the book “Our Dogs,  Our selves” which analyses classical literature and it too wonders about the breed/type divisions that happen between higher class with breed standards and “lower class”. I’ll try to share the page I found really interesting on it when I get home. 

 

I think quite a few breeds do come from more basic backgrounds originally but as they get standardised and become more acceptable to higher classes, their humble backgrounds get forgotten. Eg whippets, terriers, 

 

Also thinking that as we see it today the urban poor are relatively new concept, only 200+ years old and...well... standards aren’t known for accepting developing /new breeds, especially when they’re not likely to be called such. Let alone from more humble origins ? How would they be identified? Would we want them identified? How do you avoid putting such a higher class associated activity on to these dogs without it coming across as class erasure or cultural erasure it white washing etc? Something to be very careful of I think. 

 

What about home grown camp/desert dogs? I think a comparison could be made between some ppls gut reaction of them being worthless pests (for being lower income rural linked dogs?) and that baladi are similarity disregarded hence this video raising awareness on their virtues :) so we get a nice romanticised view of them without the cultural leanings for or against. 

 

Request for a similar video on the desert dogs??

Edited by Thistle the dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I’d love it if humans could get over themselves and manage these dogs as they are. But if they were brought to the front and became popular, you’d have the true enthusiasts trying to maintain them as they are for what they are, And over the other side pedigree folks slamming their efforts because the dogs are not being forced into a closed gene pool to their inevitable detriment. 

 

As highlighted by another thread recently, it doesn’t matter anyway now, because lawmakers in this country have made it next to impossible to work with anything outside of a traditional ANKC breed, or a PIAA accredited puppy factory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Salukis could be a comparative example as a landrace that has been standardised in western countries. 

 

Granted western ideals of what counts as pure have creeped in a bit but things change, in the home country they are much more varied than what we get still. And if it hasn’t changed, you can import some landrace Salukis into the breed standard pool (admittedly a looser standard than most breeds) - giving a genetic boost and keeping them a bit closer to their true origins. I don’t think that happens as commonly as would be desirable but it’s an option most breeds don’t get. 

 

But it again the goals for the landrace variant are generally very different to the goals when imported and you result in the different varieties of landrace and “purebred”. Both Salukis. 

Edited by Thistle the dog
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuralPug   

@sandgrubber

15 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

The recent News post on the Baladi has left me thinking that most of our breeds stem from 

1. Rural working breeds

2. Aristocrat / wealthy peoples' dogs, meant as lap dogs or hunting dogs

3. Fighting dogs, either as in pit fighting or as war dogs.

Not many breeds come from land races associated with the urban poor or common folk.  Seems a shame.  Such dogs would almost have to be well attuned to people, dog friendly, low maintenance, and healthy to have survived... exactly the traits I want in a house dog.

An interesting topic. I see landraces somewhat differently.

Terriers/whippets have already been mentioned. Schipperkes and other odd and assorted breeds have also been developed by common folk, as have quite a few of the older vermin hunting, carting etc. breeds in Europe and elsewhere.  In Australia many of the hunting landraces (pig dogs, bullarabs, staghounds, vermin terriers all for example) have been developed by the common folk and not aristocracy. 

Common folk tend to develop breeds from necessity, and eventually aristocrats refined and standardised most of those breeds for bragging rights. (Modern breeds such as the Doberman which were deliberately developed from scratch are the exceptions that to me prove the rule.)

Because urbanised living is in itself a modern invention, there hasn't, I suspect, been time enough yet for the common folk to have helped create a landrace just for companionship, that may take another few hundred years. Thus, no companion breed landrace at this stage in history.

The strictly companion breeds that we see today tend to be upper class developed versions from different landraces - as only the upper class has previously had the leisure resources to demand a pet that had no other use than companion.

Only time will tell if the relatively recent invention of leisure resources for the common folk will lead to the development of a strictly companion landrace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

 ...  Such dogs would almost have to be well attuned to people, dog friendly, low maintenance, and healthy to have survived... exactly the traits I want in a house dog.

Have to agree - the street dogs in most developing countries have a calm attitude to life, and appearance-wise can scrub up to look lovely - need to see past the poor diet and traffic smoke.

 

Would those like Lurchers and Basenjis be included - and Kangaroo Dogs which were the Australian bushies' dogs before the contrived crossbreeding for hunters (both yobbo and justified).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lhok   

The Canaan dog. Up until last year the breed was still incorporating wild dog/camp dog genes into the gene pool. One reason they aren't anymore is that the person who was doing it was forced to move out of their home/kennel in Israel. The other reason is that it is getting harder to find dogs to add to the gene pool.

--Lhok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RuralPug said:

@sandgrubber

An interesting topic. I see landraces somewhat differently.

Terriers/whippets have already been mentioned. Schipperkes and other odd and assorted breeds have also been developed by common folk, as have quite a few of the older vermin hunting, carting etc. breeds in Europe and elsewhere.  In Australia many of the hunting landraces (pig dogs, bullarabs, staghounds, vermin terriers all for example) have been developed by the common folk and not aristocracy. 

Common folk tend to develop breeds from necessity, and eventually aristocrats refined and standardised most of those breeds for bragging rights. (Modern breeds such as the Doberman which were deliberately developed from scratch are the exceptions that to me prove the rule.)

Because urbanised living is in itself a modern invention, there hasn't, I suspect, been time enough yet for the common folk to have helped create a landrace just for companionship, that may take another few hundred years. Thus, no companion breed landrace at this stage in history.

The strictly companion breeds that we see today tend to be upper class developed versions from different landraces - as only the upper class has previously had the leisure resources to demand a pet that had no other use than companion.

Only time will tell if the relatively recent invention of leisure resources for the common folk will lead to the development of a strictly companion landrace.

Urbanized living is hundreds of years old... thousands, even, though if you go back before the industrial revolution the numbers are a lot smaller.  

Street dogs aren't strictly companions... they do some guarding/warning and some waste disposal.  In some cultures they may be emergency food supply.  

Europe may be odd...as dogs were much used for carting, turning spits, etc. In the 18th and 19th centuries.  I don't think you see that in Africa, Asia or Latin America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gillybob   

Bassets have been around for a long time helping farmers and hunters get food and keep pests away.

They have been changed to fit the game they need to catch.

Fauves and other members of the Basset family have been hunters, if you look at them they go from Long low Bassets, then fauves then up another level until you get to the Grande.

All fit into a different area of hunting game.

Owners have done that to get a dog that they need to catch bigger game for larger families. Larger families because more game is caught to feed the family?

What came first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RuralPug   
4 hours ago, sandgrubber said:

Urbanized living is hundreds of years old... thousands, even, though if you go back before the industrial revolution the numbers are a lot smaller.  

Street dogs aren't strictly companions... they do some guarding/warning and some waste disposal.  In some cultures they may be emergency food supply.  

Europe may be odd...as dogs were much used for carting, turning spits, etc. In the 18th and 19th centuries.  I don't think you see that in Africa, Asia or Latin America.

I didn't make myself clear - yes you are correct, cities have been around since Sumerian times, and earlier in Asia, but haven't been connected with leisure time for the common folk since well into post Industrial revolution times. And we are agreed that landraces (rather than breeds) tend to be developed by the common folk, who until recently have not had the resources to spare for a dog that was companion first and only.

Street dogs are NOT deliberately developed they interbreed without interference. Nature develops those!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m thinking  it is likely as being developing breeds /types or mixes of, they wouldn’t be welcomed by many in purebred world for a long long time. Far more likely will be dismissed with terms like mongrels no matter how true they breed whether human guided or self defined a la street dogs. 

 

Think that’s a damn shame, I’d love to see new breeds developed. The landrace urban dogs probably do exist but are we recognising them as such? Or are we dismissing as generic mixed breed. 

 

My first thought is to the ambiguous fluffies that seem the same no matter the city and again the bull arab style crosses. You recognise them as the generic big dog, but they don’t have one defining name. Where would they fall into this wondering ? Staghound and the like, where on the scale between mixed breed and landrace would we put them? Are they dismissed because they’re usually in a lower income bracket? Do they need videos highlighting them as well?

 

(I wouldn’t mind, would be good to watch)

Edited by Thistle the dog
misspelling made a sentence weird
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thistle the dog said:

...  the bull arab style crosses. .... Are they dismissed because they’re usually in a lower income bracket? .....

Or because they inspire fear?  And that's just some of the owners.

 

Okay tongue in cheek, but they can be a challenge to manage, best suited to very dog-wise people - and not always dog-friendly as an attribute mentioned in Sandgrubber's OP post.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×